The Daily Mirror Presents: Kate McCann's Wild Theory - Picked Apart by NT

Have you ever found yourself reading a newspaper article - of course you have, and saying to yourself  "Is this fucker for real?"

We've almost become desensitised to the bullshit we're subjected to by the mainstream media. It's been happening for years; in reality, we expect it; we might not like it, but it kinda is what it is.

Then you come across something so ridiculous - in this case admittedly so, that you wonder...

Feast your eyes on this article in today's Daily Mirror:

Madeleine McCann Netflix viewers convinced they've spotted clue proving she was snatched:

The press never misses a chance to shake loose change from the big tatty sofa in the room.

New speculation about Madeleine McCann's disappearance is circulating following the controversial Netflix show

Indeed, there's a lot of it about. Despite the McCanns' cries of "Objection!" to the Netflix documentary, it was clearly a Pro McCann Production. Yes, there were a few areas that cast doubt upon Kate and Gerry - most notably the inclusion of the dogs; but even these gems were glossed over by the usual McCannites: Clarence Mitchell; Jim Gamble; Summers and Swann; Justine "ooo what a big bar tab" McGuinness; Metodo 3 and more, but on the whole, the documentary was a playground for propaganda.

A wild new theory has emerged about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following the controversial Netflix documentary about her kidnapping.

Wild eh?

By the way, kidnappings are generally followed by demands for money, but whatever.

<reads on>

Viewers picked up on a line in the show the toddler was "sleepy" in the hours before she was picked up by her parents from a daycare centre at the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz in 2007.

People are now suggesting the McCann family were spied on and three-year-old Maddie was drugged by the kidnapper in the hours before she was snatched from her bed.
Now bear in mind that the above is a theory actually purported by Kate McCann...and that word "wild" becomes all the more interesting.

The usual script follows:

Maddie's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, were eating out with friends at a tapas restaurant close to the hotel and regularly checked up on their children before realising their daughter was gone.

We've read that a million times, and the majority of us don't believe a word of it, but...

In the show it's said Maddie was sleepy on the day she was kidnapped and the fact her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, failed to wake up when she vanished is adding fuel to the theory online.
Is it adding fuel to that "wild theory" or is it that "wild theory" - Kate McCann's "wild theory", of an "abductor" sedating the twins, them failing to wake, and the former anaesthetist doing precisely nothing other than to check their breathing with her hand, giving rise to a far more plausible theory, given the evidence we have?

Was the journalist who wrote the above drawing attention to Kate McCann's "wild theory" so that the normal people in the world would look more closely at the heavily supported sedation theory?

He could have written about that right? Sure, his editor would have run a white-hot skewer through his testicles and pinned them to his forehead, but he could have...he should have.

I don't want to take up too much space here, but what I do want to show you, is the flip side to Kate McCann's "wild theory" a much more stable theory. One that doesn't involve an astronomical leap into the incredulous. One the journo at The Mirror bottled out of writing. One that implicates the parents:

This is the most comprehensive and brilliantly put together pieces you will ever read on the sedation theory and unlike Kate McCann's, it's not at all "wild"



Written by NT

You are falling into a deep, deep sleep...........
Sedation

Welcome to the first of what will be several articles about this aspect of the McCann case. We'll be looking at the evidence that sedation was used and most importantly, we will be looking at what the McCanns had to say about it.

But first, let's talk a bit about sedating children in general; why is it done, how is it done, and what are the dangers?

I'm going to start with a disclaimer - I'm not a medic and I have no hands-on experience of sedating children, so my knowledge comes from study rather than observation. Having said that, I am more than happy to hear from anyone with experience, correct any errors, and provide source material if required. A great deal of what I am going to say could equally well apply to adults, but there are specific risks associated with sedating children, and I'll point them out as I go


Why is sedation used?

There are a number of reasons why sedation might be used in children, these are the main ones:

To carry out an otherwise painful treatment, such as reducing a fracture or suturing a cut
To relieve anxiety in a patient undergoing a procedure
To enable certain tests to be conducted - imagine asking a toddler to keep perfectly still during a CT scan? Yeah, good luck with that one.
To carry out other examinations where the child might be frightened, might struggle or where a relaxed sleepy child will make the procedure easier.
For dental procedures
To manage very ill patients, eg in ITU or as part of palliative care

You will notice that night sedation is not included. There is a good reason for that. I will come to it later...

So, to sum up, sedation should be and is used to make things easier for the child and to help the professional to treat the child. It is not something which should be used lightly or where there is no clinical need - if it was, we would be handing ketamine out to new parents left right and centre, and that doesn't happen. Well - maybe in Manchester.


How is it done?

Very simply, sedation can be given to children in hospital, in the GP surgery and in some circumstances at home, by the administration of one or more drugs. These can be in the form of a gas, such as nitrous oxide, an injection, by infusion or orally. The choice of drug is to an extent governed by what level of sedation is required and any relevant medical history. Some of the drugs used to sedate children are not actually licenced for use in children, but this is not uncommon - many drugs are not licenced in kids, but they are still used. That's because it's not considered ethical to test drugs on children - but it's fine to fuck off for the evening and leave them home alone

Preparation is also important where the sedation is planned - the person doing the sedating needs to know the medical history, the weight of the child, any developmental issues etc - and sometimes the child needs to be fasted before the procedure

And that brings me round to the dangers of sedation in children.

Is sedation inherently more dangerous in children than adults?

In short, yes.

Children and babies are less able to maintain their own airway than adults. That presents a danger in sedation as they could require intervention or even intubation to maintain their airway and keep them well ventilated enough to maintain the correct levels of oxygen in their blood.

Another danger is the nature of some of the drugs used


There are several levels of sedation


Minimal sedation Where patients are awake and calm and respond normally to verbal commands;
Moderate sedation Where patients are sleepy, but respond purposefully to verbal commands or light tactile stimulation;

Conscious sedation Similar to moderate sedation, except verbal contact is always maintained with the patient. This is commonly used in dentistry;

Deep sedation Patients are asleep and cannot be easily roused but do respond purposefully to repeated or painful stimulation. They may need assistance to maintain a patent airway

The stage after this is anaesthesia - which is where the patient is fully unconscious and impervious to external stimuli.

Now - some of the drugs used to achieve sedation can very easily cause anaesthesia if too much is given and there may be only a small difference between just enough and too much. When you consider that the dose has to be calculated according to the weight of the child and the reaction can vary from one individual to the next, it becomes clear how important that children having sedation are closely monitored by a suitably qualified person at all times and that they always have access to resuscitation equipment, so that they remain sedated and not anaesthetised, that their vital signs are good, and that they are not in distress.

Now - I apologise if that was rather long-winded, but I thought it was important to set the scene for what we are expected to believe was a sort of wandering minstrel abductor, fully equipped to sedate young children and make off with one.

Next, we'll look at the evidence that sedation played a part in this crime and ask some questions about the actions of the McCanns that night - actions and omissions which have never been explained

Vital signs

In this section,
 we will look at the evidence that the twins were actually sedated and the action - or lack of action - taken by their parents. Section 3 will deal with what they actually said, when they said it, and discuss why they said it when they did.

But first, imagine the scenario as reported by the McCanns.

You arrive at your holiday flat, to find one child missing and your twin infants lying in what sounds like the recovery position, completely spark out, to the point where you are observed checking that they are breathing. Do you

Tell the emergency services to send an ambulance as well as the police?

Strip both children and examine for signs of a) Abuse; b) administration of drugs via injection or IV?

Say absolutely nothing to anyone that night, only to claim years later that you told a police officer - a conversation of which there is no record?

Call me fussy, call me over-protective, but I think I would need a fucking ambulance for myself if I didn't choose option number 1.

When I have written about these matters before, the responses have fallen into the following groups:

"Kate was a qualified doctor; she could tell the twins were fine and provide any care they required" 

This led to the invention of Honestbroker's magic finger, when the well-known McCann defender and congenital halfwit decided that every piece of monitoring equipment - ECG, sphygmomanometer, pulse oximeter - could be replaced by Kate's finger.

"It was an over-reaction; the kids were fine" 

"Don't you think they had enough to be dealing with, you heartless hater?

"The PJ should have done it, you utter bastard"

All these responses are, of course, complete bullshit.

We have to assume at this point that the twins were abnormally deeply asleep/unconscious/sedated. We are not taking Kate's word for it, Fiona described seeing Kate checking the children repeatedly and their state was unusual enough to be noted by the first-on-the-scene GNR. So even without Kate's book, we can be fairly confident something was amiss. 

Kate would have been able to do a certain amount of basic monitoring - respiration, pulse, reflexes etc, and from those determine how deeply sedated they were, but there is no record of, nor does she claim to have done anything other than check they were breathing (We will be going through her versions of that night in the next post)

This flies in the face of every aspect of emergency care, something she would have had to do as part of her training. Hell, anyone with a First Aid certificate knows most of it, and this is what is, to me, inexplicable.

When presented with a casualty, medics conduct what is referred to as a PRIMARY SURVEY.

This, as the name suggests, is the vital stage of assuring that the three basics of:

Airway

Breathing, and

Circulation

...are established. There is very little point, for example, trying to do something about a fracture if the patient doesn't have a clear airway and isn't breathing.

However, this is where Kate appears to have stopped. She talks about placing her hand on their chests to see if they were breathing, but she makes no mention whatsoever of trying to establish anything further with respect to their condition. She doesn't even mention checking their pulses. 

Importantly, she appears to have made no attempt to establish their level of consciousness.

Consciousness isn't an on/off switch, it's a scale. Anyone who has watched Casualty will be familiar with the paramedics handing the patient over with the helpful info "He's had 1 gram of paracetamol IV and he had a GCS of 13 at the scene" as they go off to scoop up the next patient. 

GCS refers to a measurement called the Glasgow Coma Score. This is a way of determining whether the patient is in a "Never mind, he's fainted, poor chap" state, or if he is basically what is often referred to as a "T F Bundy", ie totally fucked, but unfortunately not dead yet, in which case, you might as well start checking for an organ donor card. The score goes up to 15 - patient hurling themselves around the inside of the ambulance, demanding morphine now, you fuckers - and as low as 3 (dead)

(There is a modified version for children. I tried to find a version I could fit on the page for you, to no avail, so you can find an explanation here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paediatric_Glasgow_Coma_Scale

The basic principles are the same, it takes account of the differences in terms of things like verbal response.

Kate appears to have done virtually nothing.

She did not attempt to wake them

She did not check their response to pain

She did not try to get a verbal or motor response to commands or other stimuli.

She did not do obvious things if drugs were suspected, such as check their pupils and examine them for puncture marks.

If these children were drugged by a stranger, none of Kate's actions - or failures to act - make any sense whatsoever. None. 

You don't just assume they'll be okay because they are breathing now. You supposedly have no idea what they have been given, so you supposedly don't know how much they were given, or how long ago.

You don't know how it was administered - how about a nice HIV+ or Hepatitis+ needle? 

You don't know if they were given slow-release meds, which may not have reached their maximum concentration yet.

In short, you know nothing.

But despite being in a room full of fucking doctors, you don't mention any of this to the others?

You don't make sure they are taken to hospital?

Call me an old sceptic if you like, but if you have time to be farting about demanding a priest, you have time to arrange an ambulance for your drugged children.

The next section will pull everything together - we will look at what Kate claimed, where and when. We will also look at how her version was engineered to retro-fit the fact that it became evident she had been observed checking on the breathing of the twins and we'll look at the questions she has never been asked in public

Testing, testing.......

Picture the scene:

You arrive in your apartment to perform one of your trademark cursory inspections, only to discover that one of your children has vanished. After some wailing and gnashing, while you wait for the scruffy, tobacco-using morose police to arrive, you notice that your two remaining children are barely breathing, and despite the fact that you have been running about the place, screaming "Ay?Ay? Where is she, Ay?" like an anorexic, pissed Cilla Black, they haven't woken or shifted from the odd, identical recovery positions they have settled into.

Like any concerned parent, you check they are breathing. Well, it's the least you can do. No, seriously, it is the LEAST you can do. They are - phew! - but they continue to sleep through all this highly-trained medical intervention. How terribly odd!


But never fear, the cavalry has arrived!

"I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies. In spite of the noise and lights and general pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too? It was not until about 11.10pm that two policemen arrived from the nearest town, Lagos, about five miles away. To me they seemed bewildered and out of their depth, and I couldn’t shake the images of Tweedledum and Tweedledee out of my head. I realize how unfair this might sound, but with communication hampered by the language barrier and precious time passing, their presence did not fill me with confidence at all. We did not appreciate until later that these two officers were from the Guarda Nacional Republicana, or GNR, who are essentially military police, like the Gendarmes in France or Guardia Civil in Spain, run by the Interior Ministry. They deal with matters like highway patrol and crowd control, and are also responsible for law enforcement in more rural areas like the Algarve, but they do not handle criminal investigations. At that stage, of course, we weren’t familiar with the various tiers of the Portuguese police system. As far as we were concerned, they were simply ‘the police’. We tried to explain what had happened. David reiterated his concerns about roadblocks and border notification and I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated. A lady called Sílvia, who worked at the Ocean Club, had arrived to help out with translation."
And here is where it gets really interesting.

Because the words above were published in May 2011, four years after Madeleine disappeared and incredibly there is no record anywhere of her mentioning this incident to anyone, anywhere and at any time, like a shit Martini Girl.

Now - call me picky, but I would have thought that finding two unconscious children, and one vanished, she might have remembered to mention it? You know - to the police, maybe?

So why, after the passage of four years, did she suddenly reveal this little gem?


Well, it might have been because of this:

1485
“Did the twins wake up at all?”


Reply
“They didn’t. They didn’t”.


1485
“In the aftermath?”


Reply
“No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”.

Or this:

''He says there were two children in cots placed in Madeleine's room in a transversal position to the beds. The children never woke up, were in a ventral position, they did not even move during or after the search''

The first passage is from Fiona Payne's rogatory statement, the second is from the statement of one of the first GNR officers on the scene.

The world became aware of their comments after the publication of the PJ files and their subsequent translation in later 2008 and into 2009.

I bet that was an interesting day at Chez McCann.

So, now aware that she had been observed checking on the twins and that the information was in the public arena, I guess it became imperative for Kate to explain this away, hence the above passage from the book. There was only one problem with this.

There is no record of her mentioning her suspicions to anyone, despite her claim in the book that she did so.

No GNR officer mentions it

No translator mentions it

No PJ officer mentions it

No other member of the Tapas 9 mentions it

She does not mention it in her statements to the PJ, such as they were.

So this fundamental clue, the biggest indicator of what happened that night, only emerged after she put it in the book, four years after Madeleine disappeared, when it popped up like a strategically placed vase, obscuring a stain on the wallpaper.

Of course, the whole drugs issue had raised it's head prior to then. The McCanns are not stupid - at the first opportunity they put the feelers out. Were the PJ considering whether the children had been drugged? Because you know, now we think of it, the twins slept through it all!

However, and somewhat predictably, what ensued was a widespread whisper that maybe the McCanns had drugged the children? So eventually, this happened:



"And on 24 September, a forensic scientist from Control Risks came to take samples of hair from Sean, Amelie and myself. On the night Madeleine was taken, you may remember, Gerry and I had been very concerned that Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment. Since Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound, we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor. We mentioned this to the police that night and several more times in the following weeks, but no testing of urine, blood or hair, which could have revealed the presence of drugs, had ever been done. Apparently, hair grows at a rate of approximately 1cm per month, so it was possible that hair samples taken even four months later could provide us with additional information. It was worth a shot, at least. I asked for samples of my own hair to be taken as well simply because I was fed up with the constant insinuations that I took tranquillizers, sleeping pills or any medication, for that matter. The process seemed to take ages and we all lost loads of hair. I couldn’t believe they had to take so much. The scientist cut chunks of it from Sean and Amelie’s heads while they were sleeping. I cried as I heard the scissors in their baby-blond hair. I felt angry that the children had to go through this further insult. As for me, I looked as if I had alopecia. Though I cursed the abductor and the PJ, I had bigger things to worry about. All the hair samples produced negative results. While this didn’t totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, especially given the time that had elapsed, it meant nobody else (including the PJ and the media) could prove otherwise. It also confirmed that I didn’t ‘abuse’ sedative medication. It is sad that we had to go to such lengths to demonstrate this; sadder still that such tests weren’t carried out at the time."

So here we are, nearly five months later. Do read the above passage carefully, as it is very revealing. Kate now states she and Gerry had always suspected the use of sedatives, that they mentioned it that night and several more times after that. But here's the thing, Kate - there is no evidence whatsoever that you did so.

No recollection of any officer

No recollection of any translator

No mention in any statement

No reference to it in all the other bits and pieces you shoved in front of the PJ, positively bristling with descriptions of phantom men, precise timelines and minute descriptions of pyjamas. Not a damn word.

The description is, of course, as overblown and emotive as possible - a ''further insult'' to the children, chunks cut away from their blond locks, Kate herself virtually scalped. Just for the record, it requires a strand of hair about the width of a shoelace. No More.

The conclusion is very interesting

"All the hair samples produced negative results. While this didn’t totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, especially given the time that had elapsed, it meant nobody else (including the PJ and the media) could prove otherwise."

This is an extremely odd description. It appears Kate had an explanation planned, whatever the outcome

Positive - "See, the abductor drugged them"

Negative - "See, the abductor drugged them, but it's been a long time so a negative result doesn't mean he didn't"

In reality, the testing was done to try to scotch rumours that the McCanns routinely drugged their children, but in returning a negative result it cast doubt on Kate's belated claim of a drugging abductor, created to explain why she was checking her own kids were breathing.

So, these are my conclusions

Kate was worried enough to keep checking the kids, but not motivated enough to take them to hospital, raise the alarm, or ask any of her equally qualified colleagues to examine them.

From that, I conclude that they were drugged, but not by a stranger

Despite their claims, there is no record that they made an officer aware of their suspicions.

From that, I conclude that if they were drugged, it was not by a stranger.

No record exists of them telling the police in any interview about their suspicions.

From that, I conclude that they deliberately withheld this information. That does not indicate a stranger

No testing was done until such time had passed that no interpretation of the results could be precise. The motive for testing at all was to return a negative result for Kate.

In conclusion, I can find no earthly reason why any parent believing they have two infants who have been sedated by a stranger would fail to seek help, tell the police and have them tested.

I can find many reasons why they might fail to do the above if they were responsible for the sedating, though.

Why I will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007

It's no secret, that for quite some time now, I have become increasingly frustrated with the force-feeding of flawed, fanciful theories regarding the Madeleine McCann case. What people don't see, is that when I've shown evidence to counter these theories, I've been plagued via messenger by a small number of defenders of those driven by a burning desire to place people into the feeding chair, clamp the clasps, insert the metaphorical tube and perpetually ply them with puffed-up propaganda. What happened to defending the truth? Floods of long-winded, repetitive, off-beam attempts at persuasion, virtually begging me not to counter these theories - and that's not nearly the worst of it. Why? Why the hell shouldn't I pursue the truth, is that not what we're all here for?

The indoctrination will see you now

The danger of force-feeding a preposterous scenario is this; many people looking into the case can - and do, jump to the conclusion that those disbelieving the McCanns are the same people who believe the earth is flat, that guards stand along a border of the Arctic, shooting anyone who ventures too close to the edge, and that Australia was a mere invention to cover up mass drownings of criminals who were only taken 5 miles out to sea, before being thrown over the side of ships to meet a watery grave.

Is this their purpose? Tony Bennett certainly has no qualms when it comes to ignoring true facts and inventing evidence, but we'll get onto that fraud in good time.

For now, let's take a look at just some of the witness statements that have been shrouded with doubt, how they've been discredited, and why those who do so should take a look at themselves in the mirror, and have a serious word with themselves:

Firstly, the statements of the Millennium restaurant staff:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm

"When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.

She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.

She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millennium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area."

So, the first statement, and we have a member of staff who claims "...she knows the parents, the siblings, and Madeleine"

I'm really not sure what the doubters want here, or what they'd consider as proof? A biometric retina scanner on the door perhaps...

Next, we have Ana Marilia do Carmo Silva's statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANA-SILVA.htm


"She says that the child and her parents frequented the restaurant where they would have breakfast. When asked, she says that she can not remember the date when they first began to frequent the restaurant. However, she is certain that they frequented the restaurant from the beginning of the week."
Three keywords, "...she is certain"

John Young:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_YOUNG.htm

"After seeing their [the McCann's] picture, he immediately remembered that he had seen them having breakfast in the restaurant where he works, but that he does not remember any situation in particular involving this family, nor does he remember hearing or noticing any strange situation involving their presence."

He "immediately remembered" No doubt, no confusion

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htm

"For security reasons and given that the restaurant has a receptionist, the entrance of guests is registered, in order to frequent the adjacent areas cards must be shown, with the individual's name, apart number and arrival and departure dates."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htmIs this proof? I'll admit, we haven't seen the register, but you can be damn sure the PJ did.

So that's three independent witnesses who were absolutely sure, and there are many more.

BRINGING ON A SUB

"But, but, but...", say the doubters "...perhaps they used a substitute child. Perhaps they used one of the other tapas children; perhaps one of the other children were used, one who was described by her mother as shy?"

This extension of the death on Sunday theory sees suggestions that one of the other Tapas friends offered up their daughter as a substitute for Madeleine. A three-year-old stand-in whom - we're expected to believe, was to unwittingly play the public role of Madeleine in order to convince a myriad of witnesses, that her friend hadn't died on the Sunday, and that all was well. In the meantime, we're also expected to believe that this act was carried out for four consecutive days, whilst the McCanns and their friends planned a fake abduction scenario; a scenario that, let's be honest, was littered with mistakes and inconsistencies.

 More McCann lies. A crock of locked V unlocked

For me, the substitute child theory is a bridge too far. It was an area I looked at, even one - I'm ashamed to say, I bought into at one point. That was before I looked at what was being said from a logical point of view, and before I considered the feelings of an innocent little girl who was, at the time, of a similar age to Madeleine McCann. A little girl whom, for no good reason, has had her name planted into a totally implausible and disturbing fantasy world, that some will believe at face value.

I'd like to look - objectively, at some of the reasons that have been put forward as to why some think there's a possibility the witnesses I named above could have been mistaken about seeing Madeleine, and had, in fact, confused her with another child. The crux of this theory is put forward by using the following descriptions and accepting them as the full and complete personality of Madeleine.

I'll write the descriptions in purple and keep my words in black so you can see who the comments were attributed to:

Extroverted - Gerry McCann
Lively - Matt Oldfield, Jane Tanner, Kate McCann
Vivacious - Jane Tanner
Ringleader - Jane Tanner
Bags of character - Kate McCann
Loud - Kate McCann
Likes talking - Kate McCann
Huge presence - Kate McCann
Run around screaming...shouting - Kate McCann
Hyperactive - Kate McCann
Full of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Active - Sharon Lewin (Madeleine's nursey school teacher for 6 months)
Energetic - Janet Kennedy/Dianne Webster
Headstrong - Russell O'Brien
Bubbly - Rachael Oldfield/Russell O'Brien/David Payne
Full of life - Russell O'Brien
Full of beans - Russell O'Brien
Cheery - Rachael Oldfield
Full of fun - Rachael Oldfield/Amanda Jane Coxon (friend of Kate and Gerry, their cleaner and Madeleine's babysitter)
Lots of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Happy go lucky - David Payne
Chatty - Jill Renwick (Kate McCann's friend)
Wee devil - Joe Peoples (family friend)
Not shy - Jill Renwick
Personality all of her own - Susan Healy (Madeleine's grandmother)
Full of life - Russell O'Brien/Philomena McCann
Relishes being the centre of attention - Susan Healy
She would shine out of a crowd - Jon Corner (Madeleine's Godfather)
Outgoing personality - FindMadeleine website
Engaging chatter - FindMadeleine website
Incredible amount of energy - FindMadeleine website
A warm, life enriching little person that will never fail we're sure to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter - FindMadeleine website

Comparisons were then been made to differing ones from Ocean Club staff. An example of which is below, and again, from Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo:

"She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him."

It's because of the above descriptions, and contrasting recollections of a shy Madeleine, from people she barely knew, that some believe in the "distinct possibility" of another child being used as a substitute for Madeleine.

Take the snippet from the statement above, I can see no earthly reason why, for example, Jane Tanner's daughter, would be clinging to Gerry McCann's leg. More likely, that Madeleine, as children often are, was a little nervous in the restaurant. Perhaps tired (groggy even?) and therefore a bit clingy.

Given that the people who described Madeleine as all of the above knew her well, that she would recognise their faces and be comfortable around them, is it beyond the realms of possibility that perhaps Madeleine behaved differently around those she didn't know as well?

No, it isn't. In fact, it's perfectly normal and usual for this to be the case.

Adults can often be outgoing and confident around those they know - less so around people they don't. For children, that is more apparent. It would be absolutely natural for Madeleine to be shy in a strange environment, with other guests and staff milling about. She might have even been cranky on a morning, and not feel much like running around and being the centre of attention.

Speaking of running around, here's a snippet from Jane Tanner's statement; a snippet that shows Jane Tanner's daughter as being the least shy of all the kids on the holiday, at that particular time:

"Err and then I mean I really can’t, the kids were excited so they were, Ella was running around especially"
Another point to consider is this. After Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry McCann were under the spotlight, they had lied about the crime scene and would be desperate - as would their friends, not to give rise to any suspicions upon them by describing Madeleine as anything but a happy child. Had they described her as shy, quiet, reserved, timid, withdrawn or any other similar variant, then fingers would have been pointed a lot sooner than they were.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that Madeleine McCann is perhaps the most recognisable child on the planet since Harry Potter first sat on a Nimbus 2000! All it would have taken, would have been for just one of the witnesses to say "Hang on, that's not the child the McCanns were with every day"

What if the twins had called out the wrong name when addressing their sister?

What name would the adults call if said substitute child was to be spoken to?

What if this unaware child had introduced herself to another person, or been asked her name?

No, the theory of a substitute child simply isn't plausible.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

One thing that keeps cropping up from supporters of the death on Sunday theory is this, "Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't have access to the evidence we have now" This claim is actually laughable, it's not only arrogant, but it's ludicrous in the extreme.

We, the public, have seen far, far less evidence than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, and here's why.

With thanks, and with the permission of my good friend NT:

"When it comes to sources of information about the Madeleine McCann case, we have had access to far more information than would normally be available to any member of the public in most countries. It is very rare to have access to the police case file at any time, but particularly for a case which is ongoing and unsolved. We have been able to read witness statements, police communications, scenes of crime and forensic reports. In fact, if you read it sequentially, in date order, it gives a fascinating insight into how a case is approached and the multitude of tasks which have to be completed.

So one would think that someone who has followed the case closely, studied the PJ files, ignored the fawning nonsense delivered for years on a daily basis by a press which was handed stories to print, read the court transcripts and generally kept their ear to the ground would know everything there is to know about the case, wouldn't you?

And you would be wrong.

So, instead of considering what we do know, what is there out there to which we have not been granted access?

The answer is: Most of it.

So let's have a quick rewind for a minute

Most people are aware that when the PJ case file was published, certain sections and documents were withheld. Often, they are not clear about what was retained and what wasn't, and it's not easy to follow, especially when you take a document written in legal language which has been dragged through a minimum of two translation processes and try to figure out what was actually being said.

There were five categories raised with the Portuguese judiciary by UK policing authorities with respect to information which should be retained and not published. Briefly, these were:

1. Information relating to convicted sex offenders

2. Intelligence reports, often relating to suspected sex offenders

3. Information supplied via Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)

4. Communication between police forces

5. Information supplied via the NPIA.

I have searched in vain for an order from the court detailing what, with the exception of the info about sex offenders, should be retained. There are a number of untranslated documents at the end of that files, the last process file, so I am hoping this may throw up a definite answer. However, we can say with certainty that some files, in fact some volumes were removed prior to publication.

This has given rise to an oft-used expression; "Missing from the files" is often used with respect to certain statements which do not appear in the published files, often giving rise to elaborate conspiracy theories about why they were ''hidden'', secret D notices and other such rubbish, when the answer is simple - they fell into one of those categories listed above and so were withheld from publication.

So, with the exception of those few files, we have seen everything, right?

Er, no.

We have not seen, nor are we likely to ever see, the vast amount of information accumulated by UK forces, both contemporaneously and in the years since.

The reasons why are enshrined in both UK and EU law, but to put it simply we do not have the right to see those files and nor are we ever likely to unless prosecutions result and we see any evidence offered in court. Anyone who thinks they will be published with the closure of the Operation Grange investigation is sadly deluded.

So what have we NOT seen?

Easy one, this. We don't know.

We know of the existence of certain documents because reference is made to them in a later document, most typically reference in rogatory interviews to previous statements a witness may have made. It's quite simple - if they made their statement to a UK force, it won't be there. If they made it to the PJ, it will. ( I should state here it is nothing to do with Textusa's nonsense explanation that a statement would only be included if there was something of interest in it, hence the absence of some initial statements. That is hogwash)

So we know about those. We also, tantalisingly, know of a few others, like the witness who testified that they had seen K&G carrying a bag on the night of the 3rd May, because the McCanns have made specific reference to them, but we can't see them as they are not in the published file

So, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, what is out there that we have not had access to?

1. Initial statements of some witnesses who gave evidence to UK forces. In some cases, there are rogatory statements which cover the same ground so we have an idea of the content eg, Stephen Carpenter

2. Witness statements made directly to UK police forces. We know there were some, we do not know how many or what their content was

3. The 500 questionnaires sent to UK residents who had been on holiday in PdL at the time.

4. Any other evidence given directly to a UK force ( for example by people who knew any of those involved)

5. Any information submitted via Crimestoppers

6. Any information given directly to other non-UK forces


7. All the information resulting from subsequent UK investigations, including the case review and Operation Grange"

http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-full-picture.html

Proof - of needed, that the PJ and Goncalo Amaral had far more evidence to hand than those who claim the opposite, including:

500 questionnaires - not seen by the public.

Statements from UK residents who were staying at the Ocean Club - not seen by the public

Photographs - not seen by the public

The PJ and Goncalo Amaral were also a damn sight better equipped to absorb it all than a handful of people on the internet and yet, these people question the findings of the PJ. They doubt them.

I refer back to my earlier words; all it would have taken, would have been for just one witness to raise doubts as to Madeleine being alive and well up until the 3rd of May, and the entire investigation would have taken an entirely different turn of events; an entirely different line of questioning would have taken place, and we would have seen that within the limited evidence available to us, the public.

Throughout the libel and damages trials - instigated by the McCanns, Goncalo Amaral himself was fighting to prevent himself from financial ruin; his assets were frozen.

If any credible evidence casting doubt upon Madeleine being alive prior to the 3rd had presented itself, would he really have kept this under his hat?

Would the former coordinator of the case gone through years of hell, systematic and relentless abuse from the McCanns' allies in the British media, before finally having to rely upon a fund to help him appeal - and win the case brought against him?

The answer to those questions has to be "an emphatic no"

CAMERA LIES

At the top of the blog I mentioned Tony Bennett, a man with a history - dating back to 2012, of planting fake evidence relating to the McCann case, and those who try to draw attention to the real facts. As far as myself and the vast majority of people who follow the case closely are concerned, Bennett is finished, his agenda has been exposed, and so I don't wish to dwell on him too much. That being said, he is responsible for some fake claims regarding this topic, and as such it would be remiss of me not to tackle these, before drawing this blog to an end.

The following photograph is from the PJ Files, and has a description attached (in blue), by Albym, one of the translators of the files who whose job it was to examine all the photographs:

 "Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCannplaying with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean(laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Now, it's unclear as to where Albym got the date from, whether it was given to PJ by the McCanns, if it was added by the PJ after being examined, or if it was from a timestamp on Kate's camera that had also been checked, but...what is of interest when it comes to backing this date up, and proving beyond any doubt that Madeleine was alive on the 2nd, is the weather. I will zoom in on the sky:

When I was searching for some independent photos to try and make a comparison between the sky and weather on the photo above, I came across some of a windsurf competition. It wasn't until I spoke to one of the Portuguese translators, that I was made aware of the fact that Tony Bennet was also in possession of these photos. Here they are, pay particular attention to the sky:

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/gallery/241

Now you tell me, is that sky, in nearby Portimão (a mere 12 miles from PdL as the crow flies), not exactly the same as that in the photo of the play area? 

Satellite imagery of Saturday the 28th April

Yet, and despite having seen these photographs, Tony Bennett demands that people ignore the facts and claims the weather matches that of Saturday, a day that by his own admission was sunny.

Would you describe any of the photos above as being taken on a "sunny day"? Of course not, and to back that up, I've included (above) the satellite imagery for the 28th. Not a cloud in the sky, and why would there be, the photo was taken on the 2nd on a day when, as can be seen from the imagery below, Praia da Luz was surrounded by cloud.

IT'S A MATCH!
Satellite imagery of Wednesday the 2nd May

To further these false claims, Bennett also tries to tell people the clothes that Gerry and Madeleine were wearing on arrival (Saturday 28th May) match those in the play area photo. So let's look at those:

Here we have two stills taken from a video of the McCanns arriving in Portugal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw

Compare the photo on the left, to the one in the play area. Madeleine is wearing 3/4 length bottoms, whereas, in the play area photo, her jogger bottoms are long enough to fall past her ankles.

To highlight the differences even further, I've zoomed in on the trousers Madeleine was wearing in the play area (right) from another photograph, again reported in the files as being taken on the 2nd. It couldn't be any clearer that the shorts Madeleine wore on arrival - the 28th April, are entirely different from the jogger bottoms she was wearing on the 2nd of May. No question, no debate; they're different.

If we then look at Gerry's clothing, we can see he's wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt, but in the play area photograph, he's wearing khaki shorts and a long sleeved top. In other words, they're both wearing different clothes.



I feel like I'm repeating myself, and that's because I am. Despite Bennett's claims to the contrary, neither Gerry or Madeleine are wearing the same clothes as they were on arrival. Add this to the established, and undeniable facts that the weather in the play area photo is an absolute match to the independent photos of the windsurfing competition that took place on the 2nd, then there simply is no coherent claim that the photograph of the play area, showing an alive and well Madeleine, was taken on any other day than that reported in the files - May the 2nd 2007. Thus ruling out any possibility of Madeleine having met her fate 3 days earlier.

It's madness to suggest otherwise, and it's for those reasons, and many more, that I simply will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007.